Editorial: Independent probe of FBI needed

Years of high-profile mistakes and stories of corruption have eroded many Americans' trust in their legal system. Now, none other than the FBI contributes to that erosion by admitting that for decades it routinely used flawed methods that likely sent innocent people to prison.

The blockbuster admission by the FBI — after it was discovered by others — that its forensic testing of hair samples was scientifically flawed and caused 26 of 28 FBI examiners to offer flawed testimony or reports in at least 96 percent of the 268 criminal cases that have been examined in which the FBI gave testimony against defendants.

The cases fall between 1972 and 2000. In 2000 DNA testing — with a far superior scientific pedigree — became a routine part of analysis.

The Justice Department and FBI promised an independent review and issued a joint statement with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers saying the investigation would look at how the scientific problem occurred and "why it was allowed to continue for so long."

It also said that law enforcement would move forward with reviewing hundreds more cases in which scientifically invalid testimony concerning microscopic hair analysis may have been given. The government promised not to throw up procedural roadblocks that could drag out any such proceedings.

That should be the minimum, but it is not the end of the story by a long shot.

The actions taken by the FBI and the Justice Department involve federal cases, but many local jurisdictions in the states and cities have technical analysis personnel who were trained by the FBI and who likely used the same flawed techniques.

Those cases — and there are far more of them — must be reviewed as well.

There is, however, an important distinction that must be made. In many of the cases in question the hair analysis did little more than corroborate what was otherwise a very strong case. Those cases should be still be reviewed, but through a different lens than the cases in which the hair analysis was the primary piece of evidence that pointed to a defendant's guilt.

But even once all that is done, other important questions remain such as how long did those forensic specialists or their bosses know that their protocols were flawed? And how often did they knowingly overstate their findings in sworn testimony?

This investigation is important because such shoddy work is anathema to the FBI and it reflects poorly on the nation's premier law enforcement agency. The independent probe must be absolutely transparent and thorough and the chips must be allowed to fall where they may.